Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

mr.big_pig writes "The Seattle PI had a front page article analyzing the Microsoft's Get The Facts website and related ads compairing Windows to Linux. The short and sweet: follow the money and see just how 'independent' is this research. What caught my eye was that this was on the front page and not buried in the business section."

One problem, he said, is that companies will tend to keep under wraps the results of commissioned studies that turn out unfavorably. That means the public may get only part of the story when it reads a report sponsored by one of its subjects. "We're only seeing the ones they want us to see," Cherry said.

Not to mention... How the studies are conducted... Mostly when MS is comparing Windows up against its like comparing Apples to Wax Apples... They can apear to be the same... But How they are used are 100% diffrent. The one study goes on comparing multiple windows boxes against a linux mainframe consolidation server... Umm... Well Linux can run on any platform windows can... why not use the same boxes? (Because it wouldn't produce favorable results for MS)

Where as I think most of the linux vs ms studies that get done are alot more closer to real apples vs real apples. But I haven't seen very many studies at all in detail poing linux over windows.. Its just my guess they are alot closer to a direct comparison than what I have seen in windows vs linux with windows on top.

Thing is, that's not comparing Windows to Linux. That is comparing the cost-structure of "Mainframe" computers with "heaps of cheap boxes". It is well-known that generic boxes provides unparallelled price/performance for tasks that are easily divisible, such as web-serving.

Had you asked the oposite question, you'd have gotten the same answer:
"Eivind-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple Linux Web servers perform better than a Windows mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator.

What is the value of a study where you can swap the words "Linux" and "Windows", and get the same result ? Other than if you're wondering what is cheapest as a webserver for static web-pages: a mainframe, or half a dozen generic x86-boxen. But noone is really wondering about that anyways.

This is only one example, there are many.

My point is that even if the commissioner does not unduly influence the research, he still has a huge influence simply in deciding which questions to ask.

Classic example from Yes, Minister. About getting the desired result by asking the right questions (cut and paste of the quote from http://www.asmallvictory.net/mt/mt-comments.cgi?en try_id=1879);

Sir Humphrey: "You know what happens: nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good impression, you don't want to look a fool, do you? So she starts asking you some questions: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the number of young people without jobs?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our Comprehensive schools?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Would you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"Bernard Woolley: "Oh...well, I suppose I might be."Sir Humphrey: "Yes or no?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five questions and they publish the last one."Bernard Woolley: "Is that really what they do?"Sir Humphrey: "Well, not the reputable ones no, but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite result."Bernard Woolley: "How?"Sir Humphrey: "Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"Bernard Woolley: "Yes"Sir Humphrey: "There you are, you see Bernard. The perfect balanced sample."

I really don't understand why this is news. Are people really that naive?

Yes. And here is the proof. Obviously you are that naive, in a different way, in order to ask such a question. No offense intended. There are niave PHB's, and there are bosses with flat hair. For the niave ones it takes an article to point out the obvious to them. Show them the article and they will realize "Oh, I see that now." just as quickly as they would believe any Microsoft funded study or SCO PR shoved in front of their face.

I've definitely noticed in the last few mnths that Microsoft seems to be REALLY ramping up its PR war against Linux. They've been talking about it for a while, and now we're seeing it.

On the/. story below this there was a link to e-week about the 2.7 Linux kernel, and guess who had a big ad on that page? Microsoft. And the ad tried to show that Microsoft Windows Server is 11-22% faster in '4 out of 5' workplace scenarios than Linux.

Even Slashdot has been running Microsoft ads, and almost any tech news site you go to is crawling with them. Microsoft has a definite advantage against Linux when it comes to ad budget, as only IBM seems to be really pushing Linux in terms of PR and advertising.. and even then it's more about IBM's solutions than Linux, which is not surprising really. And so Microsoft is going to continue funding studies and surveys, slightly tweaking the questions to favor them ("How easy do you find it to connect to an Active Directory from Linux?"), showing the world the results which are good, and dismissing the surveys which are bad.

I wonder if there are any Linux mad advertising zealots with deep pockets to get some ads on those sites, and to generally kick up a stink and get us lots more stories in the papers and magazines. This is a PR war, and if you're a Linux devotee, make sure you fight back against it in some way (even if it's just winning your clients over to Linux even more).

I've definitely noticed in the last few mnths that Microsoft seems to be REALLY ramping up its PR war against Linux. They've been talking about it for a while, and now we're seeing it.

Linux's true downfall has far less to do with MS's market dominance than it does with basic marketing. It's nice to have a product, but it's useless if no one knows about it.
For example the people that use Internet Explorer do so not because "other browsers don't work with ActiveX" but because they are not even aware of the existence of Opera or Mozilla. The only browser ever mentioned in the same breath as MS is Netscape, which is massively inferior to the aforementioned browsers. At best it's marginally superior to MS, but not enough to have a significant competetive advantage.
Take a look at iMacs, often cited as one of the most brilliant marketing programs conceived. Personally I hated those ugly things, nevertheless they did exceptionally well.

I agree, although it's often more simple than that. I converted a client to Mozilla Firebird, which they used for a while without incident. Eventually they admitted they'd gone back to IE. Why? Because they preferred the look of the IE icon.

This assumes that the value of Linux is diminished somehow by fewer users. Linux (the kernel) does not gain from network effects the same way a browser does. Linux cannot win or lose in a practical sense. And as long as hardware manufacturers don't actively cut their only lifeline to Microsoft independence, Linux should continue to operate just fine for the millions that use it.

On a related note, in my experience this past year, Mozilla compatibility has been steadily i

Well, it's largely a marketing company. For the three months ending December 2003, it spent $ 2 467 000 000 USD [sec.gov] on sales and marketing. Some of the other line items probably include some marketing activities, so that's at least $ 9 868 000 000 000 USD per year.

The gains that Linux, BSD, OS X and others have made despite this warchest is quite a testimonial as to how far behind that company's technology is.

And that's just it right there. MS is smart enough to know how far PR goes despite damn near owning the desktop market. The "pure linux" players haven't even tried (RH, SuSE, etc.). I know their budgets aren't as huge as MS or IBM but I'm surprised they haven't caught onto this. It would make my week to see an RH or SuSE ad on TV, like some of the Apple ads. I'd even be wiling to bet that the ROI is worth it, if they do it in tech-heavy cities such as Boston, Atlanta, NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.

"Dan Leach, group product manager for the Microsoft Office System, was asked at the time whether Microsoft would have publicized the results if they hadn't been positive. He answered that he had been so confident in the software's benefits that it "was never going to be a question."
Is MS smoking the same stuff that SCO is??!?

"Dan Leach, group product manager for the Microsoft Office System, was asked at the time whether Microsoft would have publicized the results if they hadn't been positive. He answered that he had been so confident in the software's benefits that it "was never going to be a question." Is MS smoking the same stuff that SCO is??!?

Of course they are. MS is probably not intentionally conspiring with SCO to kill Linux. But SCO got their mind-altering stuff from Microsoft and now they seem like they are the sam

I really don't mean to sound like a troll, but honestly, the day Microsoft pays for and publicises a report in which linux comes out on top will be the day it should get front page headlines. This is just business as usual.

To me, the content of the story is not the interesting item here; it's the fact that a well known publication in Microsoft's own stomping grounds is publishing a story like this; I for one am very proud of them.

First of all, any vendor TCO study is going to be completely bullshit. However, there's a glimmer of truth in the Microsoft stuff:

+ Realistically, the software & hardware costs aren't going to be significantly different between Windows and Linux. Yes, you can download Linux for free, but your boss is going to pay real money for RedHat or SuSE.

+ Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level).

+ MS selected specific scenerios to favor them. For example, File and Print have never been a strong spot for Unix -- Novell and MS have owned that segement for years and years. It will be interesting to see what Novell/SuSE puts on the market.

And attacking Linux on Mainframes is like hitting the broad side of a barn -- There might be some scenarios where it makes sense, but for the most part a mainframe has pathetic price/performance and is very expensive to keep running. (Although, that wouldn't stop IBM from selling you one.)

And as for J2EE -- some of the tools are ridiclously expensive, so that's a pretty easy cost study to rig.

Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they generally have a much higher skill level. Maybe as Linux penetrates the market, this will equalize (both in cost and skill level).

I always laugh at the "windows staff is cheaper" stuff. I seriously can't believe the number of people who buy this. It's so blatently obvious that windows staff is cheap. Supply and demand IMHO. More companies use windows so there is more of a need for windows techs, and dare i admit it, there is not much need

Hence the magic word "some". Sure IBM will let you download Eclipse, but they will also sell you "WebSphere Enterprise Developer Studio" at a price so expensive they refuse to list it on their website.

Last I checked, the 'official' prices for BEA or WebSphere were something like $10,000 per developer.

Sorta like how you can do MS dev for free, or you can drop $3000 for MSDN & VisualStudio.

What are you talking about? Sure, the databases are expensive, but the subject is J2EE, not databases. If you mean Weblogic, then I have to disagree: it is a dog compared to the free or inexpensive (Resin) solutions. Never have known Bea to have good support either. That "enterprise" talk is for management, not us.

First of all, any vendor TCO study is going to be completely bullshit. However, there's a glimmer of truth in the Microsoft stuff:

Whether the report is biased or not, it would behove the Linux community to respond to the report with innovation, not just scorn. For example, improving ease-of-use on admin tools could create a drop in the cost of a Linux support people. Or better File and Print features (Novell/SuSE migth be doing this) could improve TCO in that arena.

My point is that fixing these perceived areas of "Linux inferiority" would make it even harder for Microsoft to create the next version of a biased report. If Open Source is smart, they will exploit these biased marketing reports to set future development priorities and fill any perceived gaps in functionality, ease-of-use, and TCO.

I would like to point out that Unix way, text files and command lines, while more difficult to learn is far superior in repeatability.

I've been a network engineer for 5 years, and a hard-core computer junkie since I was 7. Every time Microsoft comes up with a new GUI I have to play hide-and-go-seek to find the one dialog box that contains the checkmark I want to pick. That infuriates me, and makes trying to document procedures all but impossible. In unix I simply tell them to go into this file end edit this line. Even better, I can usually write a script to do it for them.

Microsoft would do us all a favor if on the next version of their OS they go back to good old fashioned INI files. Having to break out a registry editor tool every time I discover they forgot to write in a hook for a setting I need is ifuriating.

Something to keep in mind with the Windows Admin cost vs. Linux Admin cost is this: Any moron can administer a Windows box. Why? Because Windows doesn't give you control over anything. Linux gives you control over every little detail of how a box runs, so naturally a *nix admin has to know more stuff than a windows admin does.

"+ Realistically, the software & hardware costs aren't going to be significantly different between Windows and Linux. Yes, you can download Linux for free, but your boss is going to pay real money for RedHat or SuSE."

Yes, you will pay real money for them but Windows XP Pro is $300 compared to Redhat at $180 is still a cost savings. A $120 savings per machine can add up quickly and doesn't even take office software into account.

"+ Unix admins are more expensive than Windows admins, although they gen

The reviewer compares the cost of WebLogic+Oracle versus Windows Server+ SQL server. While the OS is much cheaper (and they omit costs of securing the platform against repeated worms), it is the cost of the proprietary software that gives MS its 25% cost saving.

The thing is, the cost of the app server and database are huge; they dwarf everything. So a large size company would only pay $5K for Redhat versus $40K for windows, but then pay $160K for WebLogic and $40K for oracle (versus $0 and $20K for the MS solution). And of course the annual maintenance fees are simply a fraction of the software costs, so they are more on the j2ee system.

Really the survey says 'J2EE using Oracle and WebLogic is more expensive than.NET and SQL server'. And it probably is true. But that is what comes of not embracing open source more fully. Adopt JBoss instead of WebLogic, save nearly $160K. Adopt Postgres or MySQL instead of Oracle, save $40K. end result: open source wins hands down, provided development costs are roughly comparable.

So yes, the study was utterly rigged. It makes a valid critique of using WebLogic and Oracle, but says nothing about Linux/JBoss/mysql.

I'm going to write a program that searches slashdot for the phrases "mysql" and "transactions" and always posts a short reply that MySQL does support transactions now. And stored procedures will be in the next version.

MySQL has a LONG way to go to be comparable to Oracle obviously, but I just wish everyone would stop repeating this same stuff about features it has had for a while now.

Also, why does everyone ignore Firebird (the database)? It supports all those features and is Free.

Firebird was born when Borland open-sourced their database product. I worked at Borland for a number of years. You would think I would be its biggest advocate, rather than giving quotes to promote a non-ACID competitor [mysql.com]. But let me tell you why I, and possibly other people, haven't embraced Firebird-the-database. First, having worked at Borland, I saw some of its problems up close & personal. We tried to move borland.com to a database-backed site at one point, and our own product couldn't keep up with the load. Of course, this was 1998, so it's old news. Someone at the company, whose name I wish I could remember, eventually built a smart little system that would pre-generate every possible combination of db-built pages, and pre-load our server with hundreds of thousands of static HTML files. This worked, as the database never took any direct hits, and only had to rebuild the pages at midnight each night. However, since I had just come off a bad experience with IntraBuilder (now cancelled, partly thanks to me & Chris Malatesta trying to use it on borland.com, and watching it crash & burn), I was really wary, and felt that the database was a big compromise.

In addition, the database at the time had a number of bad limitations. One was that, even after deleting records, the database size would grow. We had a customer that wanted to create and delete about a million records a day, but after a month, the database size looked like it housed 30 million records, not 1 million. I initially just assumed that the indexes were not properly maintained, but since Borland eventually lost the customer, I assume a simple regen of the indexes didn't fix it. And of course, as most of us know, after the database was open-sourced, a pretty severe exploit was found, and it existed in all or nearly all versions, including the proprietary ones. That the open-source guys found the exploit and repaired it is a testament to OSS. And as further testament, I just assume that they've tightened up the code now to the point that every previous complaint or concern I've had is moot.

So what's the problem? Well, in the last 6 years, I've left Borland, and found better databases (IMHO) in MySQL and PostgreSQL. MySQL had a reputation for being very basic, but very fast without a lot of tuning, and very easy, and very reliable. PostgreSQL had a reputation for being (nearly) as feature-complete as Oracle. Over the last few years, I've simply defaulted to them -- they're what I know, they're what I use, they work, and I've not had a reason to look elsewhere. And I think that's Firebird's problem: the bulk of Web people have already been in the business for a while, and already grown accustomed to other databases. It's inertia.

To solve this, one of the only things I can think of would be an anti-MySQL campaign, where you clearly outlined MySQL's silent error problem. It's the only problem I've had with MySQL -- this scenario where it doesn't process the request properly, and silently discards it or picks some (never quite right) defaults. I'm currently getting this with some date fields, where it helpfully inserts an unexpected 0000-00-00 date. If someone documented all those issues, and explained them simply, and showed better alternatives, it might open up people's minds. Of course, in my case, I'm enough of a MySQL fan that I'd rather just wait for Monty & others to improve their product. But I'm sure some people could be encouraged to reconsider their loyalties. And until they do, Firebird could be better but still have no mindshare.

MySQL is making strides towards all of the 'enterprise' features of db's like Oracle. (side note: why do people say enterprise when they mean 'scales well'). Stored procedures and the like will be available in MySQL probably in a year.

In my experience, JBoss fares really well against Weblogic, and offers similar support levels. Use Eclipse as your dev. platform, as its features and plugins (as well as ease of plugin development) surpass commericial offerings.

So thus far the only thing we are paying for is Oracle, and it's not that expensive, especially for the quality support that you get. So for a small to medium sized company, get a couple of quality admins, forgo 'enterprise' workstations in favor of a decent Fedora setup. Of couple of good admins should be handle this, without the need for external support. Get enterprise support for the servers and network infrastructure.

Thus with F/OSS you are saving (per workstation) probably in the nieghborhood of $1000. Multiply by 100 workstations, and you can buy yourself another admin.

The problem with comparing a certain offering against Linux/BSD/and OSS, is that with the latter there are so many different possible solutions (which I admit can be a problem) that you can probably find one that will save you significant money, solve your problem, and do it well.

You've obviously never used Postgres. Postgres is in the same league as MS SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, and others. It is not quite as tunable as Oracle, and Oracle can scale higher, but not higher enough to be in a completely different league.

Comparing PG w/ Access shows that you've never used PG. PG supports views, triggers, constraints, the ability to write functions in many languages, indexes, partial indexes, some table inheritance support, includes a genetic query optimizer, can do views of "group by" clauses (and optimizes them very well), can do updateable views, has a really nice "rules" system for rewriting queries, has write-ahead logging, support for multiple transaction isolation levels, and several other features I can't think of here.

The limitations of Postgres are: no support for configurable tablespaces, no automated point-in-time recovery (however, Oracle's PITR is quite limited, too), doesn't work with protocols requiring two-phase commits (PG uses MVCC, which uses less locking), cannot do nested transactions, and does not have a built-in automated replication solution (although third-party products and open-source projects are available).

These limitations are only problematic in the largest of deployments, however, and most of them can be worked around. The only one which would be problematic for most database apps is the lack of support for nested transactions.

"As for JBoss vs. Weblogic, i don't have enough experience with either to make a valid comparison, but Weblogic is ceratinly a much more capable product by features alone."

Actually, JBOSS has led the way in features, with Weblogic playing catch-up. I'm sure there's some things that Weblogic has that JBOSS doesn't, but most people I know who have used both prefer JBOSS.

Given the "LINUX performance analysis" from Microsoft in the past, I tend believe these "independent reports" are more or less propaganda. Bias aside, I think the point is made, that the problem isn't whether Microsoft attempted to influence the reports or not, but rather the fact that Microsoft sponsored the study puts (conscious or unconscious) pressure on the analysts performing the study to be bias one way or another.

It is the same reason why drug companies need to perform double blind testing on new medicine to see whether the effects are merely due to influence from the people performing the study and the patients being told that they would get better.

similarly, though Microsoft may demand that the reports be objective, the analysts employed may just by association, subconsciously put Microsoft products in a slightly better light.

All Windows vs Linux researches are meaningless because of one simple fact: Microsoft has billions available to throw at making Windows better, whereas the Linux community, even with RH and other prominent companies, is rather poor in funding in comparison.

If I was an IT manager, I would consider Linux to follow a "best effort" sort of approach, whereas Windows, being far less than free, should come with guarantees about stability and performance. However, at least in terms of stability and security, Linux

However, at least in terms of [1]stability and [2]security, Linux certainly outperforms Windows, if not by much these days. And it probably isn't far from Windows in terms of raw [3]speed.

Hard to match
1) stability through fever-pitched-bug-fixing (open source) vs. mere self-monitoring-of-doomed-processes.
2) security-by-design vs. security-largely-through-obscurity.
3) the raw speed of having no CPU cycles to have to burn on the GUI becuase you can entirely remove the GUI!

OTOH, Windows makes for a nice workstation. Why not use the right tool for the right job? Can't we all just get along?

Throw Microsoft's billions at Linux and Windows would instantly become a laughable joke.

Uh, in the back office and in the data center, Windows is a lughable joke. (Yes, most data centers tout Windows, but that's because customers demand it.)

Your analogy, though fruitful in some respects, does not hold over thoroughly to software development. It is a commonly accepted axiom among experienced commercial teams that adding people to the team does not ship the product faster. In that light, throwing money at problems need not produce solutions. The problem seems to be that professional programmers are not immediately useful in a project, requiring ramp-up time.

In the open source world, however, the incentives and results are very different. Many p

Microsoft funded studies have been popping up since my OS/2 days. They all have some things in common: They seem to try to obscure the fact that the study was funded by Microsoft, they all come to favorable conclusions based on questionable premises and they all seem to end up on a forum like this one, with everyone calling shennanagans.

Studies are a marketing device for Microsoft. We may as well get used to being on the sharp end of their marketing department's pointed stick.

I've refrained from posting on any garbage like that forever, but since not much people are posting (sick of it already, or too busy combing thru all the reports?), I'll chip it one.

Disclaimer: I've not read all the reports, just the article and the IDC report.

Microsoft's Taylor said that findings are also presented in such a way that they can be duplicated by others. I'm not sure. The reasoning for the quantification method is weird at best. On p.10 of the IDC report, every item for Linux is more expensive.

Let's take hardware. The hardware for Linux is more expensive because it is assumed that for the same hardware, Linux can handle less load than Windows, therefore, you need more hardware if you deploy Linux, hence higher cost. That's weird, how did they come up with that assumption? It's certainly not explained in the "open methodology".

Software: how did they come to the conclusion that Linux softwares are more expensive? I can't find the list of comparable softwares they used in their study. If this methodology is really open, let's provide the data, shall we? And they claim that Linux is used mostly for print, file serving, and web serving. Well, if that's the case, the softwares for those functionalities cost almost nothing, except for support, which is more or less the same for both platform. How come I remember I used to pay thousands of dollars for a Windows Server allowing only 5 connections?

Staffing: Sure, Linux/Unix admin are more expensive. That's true only if you assume that each Linux/Unix admin can only do the same amount of work as an MCSE monkey. You draw your own conclusion.

Training: That, I'm not sure. It's probably easier to pick up Windows, as every new kid is already familiar (more or less) with windows interface already, before the training? Ok, let's say the data here are correct, but I still want data.

Outsourcing: I can't seem to understand how did they come up with that conclusion. I'd like to see the raw data.

The funny thing is this: the report said that Linux is used only for "light workload on the edge", and not for the real stuff.

Hmm, I guess they didn't talk to the CIO of amazon.com (hint: based on their previous experience with Linux for other things with a $16M cost savings, they are moving their mission-critical terabyte database to Linux!)

The hardware for Linux is more expensive because it is assumed that for the same hardware, Linux can handle less load than Windows, therefore, you need more hardware if you deploy Linux, hence higher cost. That's weird, how did they come up with that assumption? It's certainly not explained in the "open methodology".

This is a fundamental flaw in logic known as "begging the question" - by assuming what you want to prove and then "proving" your conclusion based on that incorrect assumption.

I haven't bothered reading the report, but reading your summary reminded me of Vietnam. when fixing the election results the U.S. advisors suggested a more realistic value but they went for something like 99% instead.

contrary to Hitler's "the bigger the lie, the easier they swallow it", putting out BS of this magnitude is retarded.

Just 30 posts so far, hours after an article on MS is put up on Slashdot. Guess it implies that study reports (funded, sponsored, sexed-up, or otherwise) carry little weightage with IT consumers, these days.

This could explain why Linux adoption continues to increase despite all the media hype and study reports - users and organisations are probly doing the study reports themselves..... consumers getting wiser is a highly undesirable phenomenon for the Corporat types - I think we'll soon see Ask Slashdot article on "How to Keep the Consumer Stupid?"-

...why the hell does Microsoft need to campaign so much against it? It is not as if Linux is campaigning to push Microsoft out of the market, is it? If Linux becomes a big player, it will only be because of its merits. And Microsoft claims the merits aren't there. So what are they worried about?

Microsoft is scared shitless of linux. They know as well as anyone that linux is faster, cheaper, more reliable, less prone to vendor lock-in, etc., and they know their customers know it too.

Since everyone knows they're lying anyway, Microsoft's black PR campaign will end up giving linux the exposure it can't afford to give itself. Maybe it will hold back the tide for a bit. Who knows? But software commoditization is inevitable if Microsoft fails in its bid to Xbox the PC platform.

Companies "couldn't say, 'Maybe I should just choose Linux because there were 52 Slashdot postings saying that Linux is better,' " he said, referring to a popular Web site for technology news and commentary. "That's really what drove a lot of the emphasis to say, 'Hey, fine, let's really give a set of facts.' "

I like Linux myself and I do use it alot. But to me it stil misses one thing.

When you install a Novell server or a Microsoft server these days, you get Directory Services with them both. You have the possibility of integrated groupware products that works together with the the Directory Services just like file serving, print services, internet access and alot more, all controlled from one system. Specially Novell have made a great system for centralized management of decentralized serveres, and I as far as

Everything you want may be coming. I'm assuming Novell purchased SuSe with the intent of integrating Netware into Linux. If that happens, we'll probably see a large groundswell of people migrate. There are a lot of companies out there using Netware still and I'm sure a lot of them would switch to Linux for a whole lot of reasons.

The combined strength(technological and financial) of IBM and Novell should give Linux a corporate presence it's never experienced before. Netware for Linux would really give it a

So essentially yeah, I can say the TCO (including acquisition) of a network of P90s running a DOS-based text interface is really low, but what does that say about my business' capability? *silence from the ranks*

I'm no Linux fanatic--I believe in somewhat heterogenous environments, and that every app/product has its place. Also, Microsoft here have been doing a fantastic job responding to our needs and requirements with information and updates about security issues, even though I'm sure it's a direct result of pressure and arm-twisting (shows what a bit of competition can do to a lazy organization).

However, this sort of goes to prove that adage about "lies, damn lies and statistics". What a lot of IT shops who've focused entirely on the bottom line start realizing is that you don't get around hiring very good, expensive IT staff if you want to keep your business running. Fact of life and all that.

But then again, I don't expect the types of people who want "facts of life" distilled down to "numbers on a Powerpoint presentation" to necessarily be directly interested in long-term benefit to their companies.

'Maybe I should just choose Linux because there were 52 Slashdot postings saying that Linux is better,' he said

Well, he must have at least looked at the slashdot article, because a headline I made fun of last time [slashdot.org] has been removed! Previously, the headline read "10 Times Less Expensive Than Linux," and now it's "Far Less Expensive." It's stilll wrong, but at least it's not quite so absurd.

But since my voice was heard the first time, I have another suggestion. Stop trying to look like Apple! That page looked like it came straight out of Quartz! Why not try making your documents match your own company's image, instead of a competitor's image?

Step number one was completly negleting OSS and hoping customers wouldn't notice. *That* was a time when M$ should have prepared to sell it's own Linux distro with DX 9 and some other embrace and extend stuff. They missed it and screwed up. Lucky was we.

Step two was bashing the GPL as 'unamerican' and other bullshit and bringing customers to look twice at licensing where they used to give a hoot about the small print. Thus causing them to also look at M$ licenses and notice what BS they have been subscribing to for years allready. Ballmer backed of merely a half a year later and admited it was a bad plan to draw so much attention to OSS by bashing Linux/GPL in such a way.

Step three: Publish studies were everybody with more than 2 braincells notices in an instant that Linux/OSS is on top of things and M$ knows nothing other to do about it than flail the bullshitting-club left right and center.

Can a company of this size with marketing departments on a budget as big as the anual throughput of something like the third of afrika be so stupid and windows focused to pull such a mindless stunt?Honestly, if I were a stockholder of M$ I'd be somewhat pissed and would want a question or two answered on that matter. M$ better get a grip and start preparing to change their business model or else they're gonna be in deep shit faster than any of us had ever hoped for.

I personally don't think that the research companies make up results, just to please Microsoft. I do however believe that results that doesn't favor Microsofts products remain upublished.

The result for the research companies work is only valuable because people trust them, they can't really afford to lie. On the other hand Microsoft wouldn't allow them to publish which doesn't favor their products. The research is stil useless, because the company who is paying can choose not to make the findings available

as in:
"Our response to WTO has been to spend 300 million yuan on a research and development centre and improve the quality of our brands. In March last year, a research centre in Kentucky found that our tobacco, grown using only natural fertiliser, causes the least harm to consumers. Actually, it is good for health - it calms the mood and stops old people from becoming muddled and getting Alzheimer's disease." -- Hill of the Red Pagoda Group, China's biggest cigarette producer. O'Neill, M. Beijing briefing: tobacco giant in training for WTO, "South China Morning Post" 2000 August 28.

There is approximately 42^42 reports published yearly on any given subject. If you cannot find your truth in one of them you just don't know what you want your truth to be like.

I guess I should be ashamed of myself for always being so surprised when Microsoft continually refuses to defeat something via innovation or hard work and instead chooses the propaganda route.Their strategy, in this particular case, will probably lure a couple of CIO's who stumbled upon the 'independent study' into Microsoft's camp, but then again, anyone not willing to do a fair amount of research on their own probably deserves Microsoft software.We're in the process of phasing out our Microsoft servers.

is that msft usually tries to hide the funding. For example, a ziff-davis article comes out with a headline like: "Independent study shows linux has higher TCO than Windows." and you have to really dig to find the "independent" study was actually funded by msft.

If msft came and admitted right away that msft funded the study, I would have no problem with those bogus studies at all.

Ask a careful question so that it leads directly to the answer you want.Set the conditions and assumptions to levels you know will give the desired outcome.Don't tell anyone about all the situations where you don't get the answer you want.

Ever see a MS study on a Beowolf/Google type deployment? It isn't hard to understand why.

The real problem is that the studies are geared toward benchmarking the few strengths of the Windows platform. A perceptive reader would note that the IDG study actually confirmed that Windows was significantly less reliable that Linux.

The IDG study mentioned that among file and print servers, Linux servers on Intel platforms averaged a higher workload with a lower failure rate. However, faithful to their master, IDG goes on to contradict itself by noting that Linux admins get paid more than Windows admins. Which means that taken on a per machine basis, Windows is cheaper, but when taken on a workload volume basis, Linux is less expensive.

The problem with such studies is that they are slanted toward the situations in which Microsoft's products do perform reasonably well. Consider for example the Windows-server against Linux-on-mainframe benchmark: a totally useless comparison. In the first place, companies don't buy mainframes for web-serving; they buy them for corporate datacenters. Then, when they want to provide web functionality, they either augment with Windows boxen which must connect to the mainframe for database access, or they run Linux servers on the mainframe. The first case involves hiring additional Windows admins, the second, merely training the existing mainframe systems programmer on Linux. Furthermore, you will never find a situation in which a company's mainframe-based webserver is outperformed by a Windows box. The reason? In real world corporate environments, business critical data is always stored on the mainframe simply because it is the most reliable platform. Thus, the screamingly-fast webserver on a windows box can never run faster than the mainframe simply because it must wait on both the mainframe database and network latency when filling requests.

In reality, the studies are worthless because they simply don't address the manner in which businesses actually use the systems. They ignore the crucial questions of reliability, robustness, compatibility, and support.

Wish I could remember the link, but IIRC one of the cell phone manufacturers, Ericsson, I think, had some advertising campaign where to promote their new line of cell phones with interactive games they deployed pairs of good-looking women in bars using the phones to play games. You can see where male bar patrons would suddenly become interested in being able to play games on the new phones.

I have to say, though, that the tactic might have to be modified in Microsoft's case.

I'd have a real weird feeling if I met some good-looking girl in bar using her laptop and extolling how well MSDN supported Visual Something. "My mother warned me about girls like you..."

One of the things that people miss about this story is that up here in Microsoft Country, it is sacrilege to question Microsoft. When I saw this story in my morning paper, I was very surprised, as the local reporters rarely bite the hand that greases the local palms in many ways. When it comes to Microsoft (and Boeing), the Seattle PI and Times are not normally independent thinkers.

Bullshit. The Seattle Times won a Pulitzer for a series critical of the Boeing 737 rudder. Theres little love lost between the papers and Paul Allan, too, even after he bought the Seahawks. Biting the hand that feeds you is a Seattle newspaper tradition going way back. I'll bet they bitched about Denny and Yessler and Doc Maynard back in the day.

It doesn't really matter *who* does the study...the results are almost guaranteed to be biased unless the study is comissioned by a truly independent organization and carried out by a truly independent studying group.

"SCO study proves Linux is built on SCOde."
"Linux study proves SCO is build on false-promises and deception"

hmm...SCOde is now the term one can use when describing copyrighted/poorly written code that might have fallen into a software product.

And even if it is truly independent, people will argue about the methodology.

This is part of what is known as the "scientific method". In some cases knowing the methdology is even more important than knowing the results or conclusion. Where the aim is really marketing rather than actual research the conclusion will be pushed, typically without mention of the methodology (sometimes without any results.) To the point where some are simply glorified (and expensive) anecdotes.

Quip from article: In that way, the research fills a critical gap, he said. Companies "couldn't say, 'Maybe I should just choose Linux because there were 52 Slashdot postings saying that Linux is better,' " he said, referring to a popular Web site for technology news and commentary.

Of course, Slashdot also has as many posts about goatse...which kinda puts it all in perspective. lol

This is the reason that we should all have crap-detectors set on high whenever evaluating ANY study...or any media used as a single source of information.

Someone owns every media outlet that exists...by it's very nature, it is impossible to be impartial. However, this is ok. This is how it's been since the beginning of news media. It is incumbent upon us to corroborate information and to value-judge what we read in print,watch on tv, or hear on the radio.

Yeah Yeah I know - don't feed the trolls/ACs, but this just needs a comment.

If JimBob SixPack funds research comparing three mechanics, and he's a mechanic,and he's One of the three in the study, and "it just so happens" that the study finds JimBob SixPack is the best place to get your car serviced - that's suspicious (ie we "suspect" that the study results were influenced by the source of funding)

If , on the other hand, the study found that JimBob kinda sux, and you should go elsewhere.

This is just common sense

The fact that Microsoft often/regularly funds studies which (surprise!) are very complimentary about Microsoft is well-known. The fact that neither Microsoft and nor the group doing the study makes even the slightest mention of the fact that Microsoft Funded the Study (therefore, at least in theory, it's possible that the funding influenced the results) hints even stronger at a conflict of interest.

Again this is just common sense

In no way is this Linux Geeks Against Microsoft this is purely people with more than an ounce of common sense saying Business A funded some research which shows their product is the best - YAWN, why am I not surprised

Fact: when business XYZ funds "research" which says (in conclusion) many nice things about their product, and said research is publicized, anyone with more than half a brain realises this is not "research" but advertising.

I think an even bigger problem is that it's not necessarily the _results_ that are a problem, but the question. For example, a lot of the Microsoft studies compare Microsoft and Linux/J2EE. What an idiotic comparison!!!! You cannot legitimately say that it was a Microsoft/Linux comparison. The only thing that happened to be "Linux" about it was that they ran J2EE and all of the other overpriced software (like Oracle) on Linux.

What makes the research flawed is that someone else gets to ask the question,

Wheee. The problem I have with most of these studies (besides the fact that they are completely useless, as the decision is never as simple as "X is better than Y") is that the people who truly know -- those who have chosen one product over the other -- can apparently never be trusted, because they have a vested interest in it.

For example: our company writes software for Microsoft's.NET. We're updating all of our programs for DOS (programs which are still used and many people don't want to give them up). Our clients have a massive install base of Microsoft based tools, many of which were expensive and will never be updated, in some cases because the company that wrote them is no longer in business. It took a long time and a lot of research to come to the decision to use.NET. We looked at Java, Delphi, and C++ with a series of graphics toolkits, and we settled on.NET. The framework offered us a lot of flexibility and allowed us to write our first application with blinding speed. Our customers love it. In this, it has been a success for us.

If I were to write an article for an IT magazine praising.NET for custom desktop development, I would definitely be branded a Microsoft evangelist and my opinion ignored by the staunch open source community. Never mind that my webservers run Linux-based applications, or that before I started this job I had great success writing Java applications for use with Oracle. Never mind that, internally, I fough against.NET for months from a strictly anti-monopolistic standpoint, only to realize in the end that it wasn't a complete piece of shit gussied up by clever marketting.

Microsoft feels that their way of doing software is best. If they didn't, they'd be building on top of Open Source the way Apple is. Obviously, since they've got the biggest selling operating system in the world, other people think so as well. This can't be explained away by marketshare and FUD...I own several Linux machines and an OSX laptops, and I still use my Windows based PC most often. Mostly because my wife steals the laptop, but truth be told, I'm on the dumb PC. If a researcher called, and asked which machine I used most, and which machine I've spent the least time fighting with to get what I have to do done, I'd say the PC. Sorry guys.

I'm not saying this particular study isn't sleazy -- but if a third party comes up with valid data through valid double blind studies, the validity isn't immediately invalidated JUST because it favors the company that paid it to do the research in the first place. After all, drug companys have to pay to have their drugs tested -- that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to be passed every time. My wife works as a contract archeologist. She's paid by developers to do research into the history of their projects, ostensibly to prove that there's no historic value. And you know, she's really objective about it. If there's something of historical merit, she reports it, even though it gets her screamed at by developers (whose projects are then set back MONTHS while the State Historic Preservation Office does its thing). In short: the fact that Microsoft funded this study does make it suspicious. But unless you've read it and found a problem with your data, you can't immediately assume it's been skewed.

mabye the ms goons have got everyone.
seriously though. there's talk of a microsoft pr war. what to do in case of pr war? KEEP USING LINUX. keep yourself well fed. if something is totally annoying about linux, fix it! if you don't know how(like me) start getting chest deep in README's, manpages, HOWTO's and whatnot. and if
your not a geek, beg a geek to help you, or use BSD or something, which due to academic interests will never die out completely.

'2.13.5 sucks soo badly mostly since linus got addicted to heroin? we're bout to start a fork back at 2.9.3 where it was still descent' and we can do this! do you think we're ever going to be able to fork windows 95?

Hey 2.13.5 sucks, but why to hell you wan't to go 2.9.3, both of them are unstable versions, fork the stable release not just some beta crap either 2.8.6 or 2.10.5 .

Far more likely, they'll Google linux [google.com]. And frankly, what comes up right now won't leave the best impression - MyDoom is bad press for linux, and it's currently the top news article involving linux. The sites that show up (such as linux.org [linux.org]) give a too-technical description that's just plain not a good introduction to linux for newbs.

Just that your average consumer will not even read the article. As soon as the cognitive process decodes "WARNING ! COMPUTER BABBLE AHEAD !" they will automagically skip the article, be it on the front page or somewhere else and go "HEY ! LOOK ! is having a baby !"

Just that your average consumer will not even read the article. As soon as the cognitive process decodes "WARNING ! COMPUTER BABBLE AHEAD !" they will automagically skip the article, be it on the front page or somewhere else and go "HEY ! LOOK ! "Insert favorite female celebrity here" is having a baby !"

(*Argh* 2nd try, the damn thing though the stuff now in quotes being in brackets before was an exotic HTML tag and skipped it)